i went to the SFMoMA today for their picasso exhibition. i got in free...so i have no complaints. never understood cubism and its allure. i don't think i do now..but i understand why picasso is so world reknown.
after someone introduced picasso's works to america..a bunch of artists copied picasso's style. some were pretty blatant about their plagiarism. at the MoMA, they arranged picasso's works next to the people he "inspired" (including jackson pollock, stuart davis, max weber and david smith). when you see two pieces of art so similar, i'm sure you'd tend to compare. so i compared. the elegance in picasso's strokes is obvious. even when he seems to mesh colours together (the right word might be blend, but it doesn't quite look like a blend), he pulls it off and it looks elegant. yet when jackson pollock tries it with an almost identical piece, it looks crude and grotesque.
now i can say i've seen picasso! (apparently it's a big deal.)
